With his daily music posts, Genomic Repairman has clearly demonstrated that scientists can possess a great love of music. What many younguns in science and most folks outside science many not realize is that under that crusty, grumpy, “why are you rafting instead of doing experiments” facade, many scientists dabble in making music. I’ve encountered at least a half dozen full professors who play an instrument and/or sing-sometimes even in public. So I guess it should come as no huge surprise that current NIH Director Francis Collins has a musical side too.
He also has a sense of humor, as evidenced by the musical commencement speech he’s given a few times.
[YStart]600[YHeight]371[YMiddle1]http://www.youtube.com/v/EyXgm126Ko8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1[YMiddle2]http://www.youtube.com/v/EyXgm126Ko8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1[YEndW]600[YEndH]371[YouTube/]
I wonder if he’s written a new version “Their Way” for his position at the NIH…
DrDoyenne over at Women in Wetlands has noted over the years how often the students comment on the lack of female role models in science… and how difficult it is for them to name famous female scientists and their contribution to science on the spot. She points to a survey that reported 65% of Americans polled could not name a single female scientist. I find that statistic disheartening. Let’s hope that the 2009 Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Medicine & Physiology drop that number. DrDoyenne recently highlighted what I consider a gem providing a glimmer of hope. The Library of Congress has posted a reading list of biographies of women scientists.
A small gripe is that it’s listed “For Girls and Young Women”. Now I think we should be doing things to get girls interested in science, to show them that it’s not just the playground of boys. But I also think it’s just as important for the boys to know that women do science too. So, Library of Congress, why don’t we just leave it at “Biographies of Women Scientists: For Students”?
Aside from that, it’s nice to see the collection. So kudos and thanks for making the list, Library!
DrDoyenne’s post and the reading list got me to thinking about how many famous female scientists I could name. Here’s who I’ve come up with off the top of my head (with field/contribution):
– Ada Yonath (ribosome structure)
– Susan Lindquist (protein folding control/chaperones/function of Hsp90)
– Elizabeth Blackburn (telomerase)
– Carol Grieder (telomerase)
– Rosalind Franklin (crystal structure of DNA)
– Marie Curie (radioactivity)
– Laurie Glimcher (plasma cell differentiation)
I realized as I was making my list, though, that I very well might not know them if I wasn’t in science. And it also occurred to me just how few female scientists I’ve ever seen on television–whether getting kids interested in science (like Bill Nye) or talking about their science on a show like NOVA. Do I simply have selective memory? Have I not watched enough of these shows? Or do female scientists–for one reason or another–tend to stay in the background, away from the limelight?
In the end, I suppose, it didn’t make a difference that I didn’t know about women scientists as a kid. I had a strong female role model in my mother. She went after what she wanted and didn’t take nonsense off anyone; I inherited that “don’t tell me what I can’t do” mentality. As an undergrad, there were 3 female professors in my department with about 12 profs, and I had strong encouragement from male scientists I worked with or took classes with. Even my male high school chemistry teacher in a tiny town in the rural Southeast suggested that I consider a career in chemistry (although I didn’t decide on that route until much later).
Maybe it didn’t matter for me, but it could make a huge difference for others.
A Void Ship-Every postdoc should have one, but oh so few do. (Image from Wikia)
Being a postdoc is like being stuck in The Void between realities.* We tend to fall into this amorphous, ambiguous state. We’re not students anymore, but we’re not always classified as employees. Even if we are classified as employees, we’re often not eligible for the same benefits (i.e. life insurance, 401K, etc.) as those with real, grown-up jobs at the same institution. We’re neither here nor there.
The kicker is no one really knows where we’re at. That is to say, there is no hard data on postdoc benefits, pay, leave… Hell, no one even knows exactly how many postdocs there are in the U.S. I’ve seen estimates running as high as 95,000; according to the NPA Postdoc Scholar Fact sheet, NSF estimates run the gamut from 43,000 to 89,000. The information we have is based on surveys that are largely targeted toward students completing Ph.D.s in the U.S., which misses a substantial portion of the postdoc force.
The immense variation in the titles and classifications of postdocs makes it quite difficult to get a clear picture of postdoc training in the U.S. Instead we have this muddled, heterogeneous collection of anecdotes that raise a number of issues. Several months ago, a post about postdoc salaries initiated quite a substantial discussion (at least for my blog) and highlights the issue of heterogeneity. Although it seems many medical schools use the NIH NRSA payscale as the benchmark (which means about $38k for a first-year postdoc), there is no requirement (at least by funding agencies) that they do so. Few go above that mark, regardless of cost-of-living, and some go below—I heard one number as low as $24,000 a year. There’s also the issue of holidays, sick leave, and vacation—a topic which popped up on Twitter today.
Recently I became aware of another issue that I had never given a second thought: healthcare coverage. I’m fortunate enough to be employed (now and for my next post) by institutions that offer fairly generous packages (including dental!). However, some institutions that don’t count postdocs as employees apparently also do not provide health insurance! Most postdocs are pushing 30—if they haven’t already past it. Some of us have medical issues or health risks that require routine treatment or screening—a prospect which, I daresay, would be damn near impossible to afford on a postdoc’s salary without health insurance. Many postdocs are looking to start their families—how are they supposed to do that without maternity coverage? Add to this, some states assess hefty tax penalties if you don’t carry health insurance.
Fortunately the National Postdoctoral Association quite literally has a plan to fill the gap left. The NPA partnered up with Garnett-Powers to essentially provide group health insurance rates to postdocs who are not provided this benefit by their institution. You have to be a member of NPA, but dues are only $35/year**. It’s not exactly cheap—monthly premiums are about $180 for the postdoc, $340 for spouse or domestic partner, and $250 per child, more if you live in Massachusetts or New York. But it’s waaaaay cheaper than getting your own coverage through an independent provider.
Props to the NPA and Garnett-Powers on this, but it does make me realize that my situation could be substantially worse. It also makes me think that before we keep lobbying for increase NIH stipend levels, perhaps we should first push for some form of standardization of healthcare benefits. It may not be something that affects us directly—at least not today—but in my mind, it’s an important issue that needs to be addressed. Now, to figure out how…
*If you don’t get this reference, you haven’t watched enough Doctor Who! But come on: The space between universes? No up, no down? No sense of time? Absorbing Void stuff?
Feel free to contribute your own #PostdocAnalogies via comment or tweet 😛
**The NPA seems to recognize that “broke-ass” is a redundant modifier for “postdoc”. I need to get on that… after my next paycheck comes in.
Balance seems to be one of those things that everyone is trying to find. It’s a difficult and delicate thing to maintain. For me, it often ends up looking like this:
Video 1. belle chases her tail whilst precariously balanced. It’s all well and good and fun… until she falls on her face.
OK. I am being a bit dramatic–amusingly dramatic, but dramatic nonetheless. The point is, regardless of profession or career stage, finding balance is a tricky thing–especially if you’re the sort of person who goes “all in”, and science really seems to select such persuasions.
Around the time I started visiting graduate programs, a seminar speaker lunching with students asked what our plans were after undergrad. When it came around to me, the conversation went something like this:
belle: I’m going after a Ph.D.
prof (glancing at my hand): You married?
belle: After graduation.
prof (cynically): Good luck with that. I went into grad school married. I came out not married.
After that conversation, one criterion for graduate programs was ‘still married when I finish’. (That was later expanded to ‘still married and not in jail for strangling Ph.D. adviser’, but that’s a story for another time.) Here we are, 7 years later, and I’m still married. Of course, that’s not to say it’s been easy, as both Paramed (aka my husband) and I are extremely driven, passionate, and stubborn individuals.
Paramed and I grew up in the rural Southeast, where it’s not assumed that every–or even most–high school graduates will continue to college. To this point, our decisions about where to go and what to do have been largely driven by my career, and Paramed has been incredibly supportive of every step. He took on a great deal of the domestic responsibilities while I was in grad school. On more than one occasion, he brought me dinner when I was working late. The week before my defense, he got on a plane by himself (and he really, really hates flying), came to postdoc city, and found us an apartment. In short, Paramed is awesome.
A year ago, Paramed took a big step toward his career goals when he finally got the opportunity to start working on his Bachelor’s degree full-time. Our financial position–living in a city with a high cost of living plus debt derived in part from education and associated costs and in part from being young and stupid–is far from ideal, and he has had to continue working. His first semester involved a full class load distributed over 3 days plus two 24-hour work shifts every week. The next semester he was able to drop one of the shifts. What this means is that Paramed and I stay busy Monday through Friday with school and work, respectively. Before 6:30 Saturday morning, Paramed leaves for work, providing emergency medical care in one of the less savory parts of the city. When he drags in around 8 am Sunday morning, he considers himself lucky to have gotten more than an hour or two of sleep. Hence the first half of Sundays typically involve Paramed catching a long nap and me going grocery shopping. Somewhere in the midst of all this madness, we have to find time to (try to) clean our apartment, do laundry, pay bills, etc.
To make it work, we have to enjoy the little time we have. Sometimes it’s as simple as working together fixing dinner in our tiny kitchen or kicking back on the couch with a movie or hanging out in a park reading a book or walking home together from work. Occasionally it’s splurging on a nice, long relaxing dinner, free from the distractions of TV, email, phones, and so on. I have learned that, despite my protestations to the contrary, often the science can wait one more day. So I take those official holidays–things like President’s Day and Memorial Day–so that Paramed and I can have an entire day off together, and I’m getting better about not feeling guilty about not being in the lab.
Even though we’ve conditioned ourselves to try to make the most of the time we have, we are not always successful. Often the limited time we spend together is actually spent slogging through some pretty serious issues, which can involve some very heated debates. We have learned, though, that these arguments get at the heart of issues needing to be addressed, and we have learned to forgive each other and use them as jumping-off point for moving forward. Paramed and I know that it doesn’t necessarily get easier with time. In fact, decisions have been made that will almost certainly add more strain and stress. However, we know that for us to be happy together we also have to be happy with ourselves. So we move forward together, trying to balance two careers and our relationship together. We’ve made it 7 years. With a little luck, maybe we’ll make it 70 more.
Genomic Repairman, it seems, is a fanboy of NCI Director Harold Varmus. Recently the flames of the professional crush were fanned when Varmus commented on the importance of “small science”. In The Cancer Letter, Varmus is paraphrased/quoted, saying:
Although “big science” and “mega-teams” have a role, “we have to remember that the great achievements of science have almost always begun with an individual scientist—a lone explorer—working in his or her lab, having an unexpected idea. This in an essential precept to remain faithful to if we are going to retain the stature of the NCI, the NIH, and American science.”
Recently, other prominent scientists have expressed their feelings about mega-science–especially genomics–in less friendly terms. In an interview with The Scientist, Jan Klein states:
I always have been against big science. I think it’s mostly a waste of money and all the history of science shows us that it never leads to the attempted goal… I thought we are supposed to start with the question and then try to answer the question. But these genomics centers–and genomics, in general–“OK, let’s sequences. We are powerful… Let’s see what the comparisons show.” There is no design in anything.
I was just in Stockholm for the 200th anniversary of the Karolinska Institute. The first presentation was about the many achievements the decoding of the genome has brought. Then I spoke and said that this century will be remembered for how little, and not how much, happened in this field… we have, in truth, learned nothing from the genome other than probabilities.
So what does this lowly postdoc think about mega-science?
I don’t think we can say we’ve learned nothing from mega-science initiatives, but it is reasonable to ask whether how much we’ve learned is truly commensurate with the amount of money poured into the projects. If we consider a 10-year span, then the answer is likely a resounding “no”. But I also think we’re at a point in science where advancements in experimental techniques have outstripped our ability to analyze and comprehend the data, almost strictly because of the sheer quantity of data generated. Maybe in another 10 or 20 or 50 years, we’ll be able to make more sense of it. But even then, I would argue, the true breakthroughs are still going to come from individuals or small groups testing hypotheses. We may have more sophisticated ways and information for generating those hypotheses, but it will still come down to going to the bench to answer a very specific, very focused question. Does that mean the NIH and other funding agencies should abandon mega-science altogher? Probably not, but we do need to temper our expectations of such projects and take the long view to determine their true value.
Ever on & on 
